On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of hand,
deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's the
biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance, etc,
and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.

The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.

If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let the
drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation) and avoid
making it part of their revenue.